Indian Military Aviation

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jun 2009 22:11

My GUESS is that India has decided to join the "1000 ship navy".

The trend seems unmistakable.

Outside of that perhaps deploy assets in the China Sea? Too early to call perhaps, but trending that a way?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 14 Jun 2009 22:29

Surya wrote:I am more worried of what it will do when the An 32s retirement- with all the options still a distant dream.

C-27J?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jun 2009 22:36

GeorgeWelch wrote:
Surya wrote:I am more worried of what it will do when the An 32s retirement- with all the options still a distant dream.
C-27J?

MTA?

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 14 Jun 2009 22:51

hi everyone this is my first time here,

i just want to say its better to upgrade exixting IL76 with either PS90A or in development new D30KP BURLAK engine available from 2011 and with glass cockpit.this would give IL76 60 ton capability and good for next 20 years
than spending money on C17.

because what india will spend money on buying 10 c17 and its assotiated ground based infrastructure, the 1/4 of this money to buy 10 c17 is enough for upgrading 24 IL76 in service.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 14 Jun 2009 22:52

NRao wrote:
GeorgeWelch wrote:---Surya----
I am more worried of what it will do when the An 32s retirement- with all the options still a distant dream.
-------

C-27J?
MTA?

I was under the impression that he was worried about what would happen if the MTA was delayed too long or fell through ('distant dream' and all that).

Thus the offer of the C-27 as a more readily alternative, so that even if something happens to the MTA, all is not lost.

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 14 Jun 2009 22:57

you guys looking at c27j but there is be200 which is also good replacement for an32
it comes with various configurations ,can land/take off from land,water
and its good for all three services army,navy,airforce

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 14 Jun 2009 22:59

and yes an32 will be upgraded and IAF not going to retire them before 2025 so talking of retirement of these aircraft now isn't worthy

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 14 Jun 2009 23:05

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:i just want to say its better to upgrade exixting IL76 with either PS90A or in development new D30KP BURLAK engine available from 2011 and with glass cockpit.this would give IL76 60 ton capability and good for next 20 years
than spending money on C17.

The IAF operates 24 'plain' Il-76s

Since this competition is just for 10 planes, it seems to be a SUPPLEMENT to the Il-76 fleet instead of a REPLACEMENT for them.

Perhaps the competition will just result in ordering another 10 Il-76?

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 14 Jun 2009 23:08

read what i said,its about upgrading il76 not replacing them
so upgrading il76 is much cheaper than buying 10 c17 which would cost us 2.5 -3.0 billion and those il76 can be upgraded for 0.5 -1.0 billion

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 14 Jun 2009 23:15

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:read what i said,its about upgrading il76 not replacing them
so upgrading il76 is much cheaper than buying 10 c17 which would cost us 2.5 -3.0 billion and those il76 can be upgraded for 0.5 -1.0 billion

It appears that the IAF has decided that 24 heavy transports simply isn't enough to cover all their needs and thus need to expand the fleet. Even if you upgrade the entire fleet, you still have just 24 frames.

That doesn't mean they won't upgrade the existing Il-76s at some future point, but if you need more planes, you need more planes.

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 14 Jun 2009 23:23

ok need for more aircraft ???
when IL76 was purchased from soviet union IAF could buy 50-60 from them at dirt cheap price
and also more IL76 could be bought in last decade and nothing has been bought in this decade .
so in last 2 decades IAF did not feel need for more aircraft???

at any given time not all il76 are used,many of them are on ground.
most busiest route is chandigarh to leh.

even if there is need 24 aircraft with 60 tons carrying capability is enough

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 14 Jun 2009 23:51

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote: so in last 2 decades IAF did not feel need for more aircraft???

India and its needs has changed a lot in the last 2 decades . . .

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote: at any given time not all il76 are used,many of them are on ground.
most busiest route is chandigarh to leh.

I don't know enough about India's transport situation to comment at great length, but this statement caught my eye:

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote: even if there is need 24 aircraft with 60 tons carrying capability is enough

Possibly, but in comparison to other countries of a similar size, 24 is quite a small amount.

Russia
------
220 Il-76
25 An-124
20 Il-78

US
----
207 C-17
108 C-5

China
-----
44 Il-76 (including those on order)

India
-----
24 Il-76
6 Il-78

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 15 Jun 2009 01:01

NRao wrote:My GUESS is that India has decided to join the "1000 ship navy".

The trend seems unmistakable.

Outside of that perhaps deploy assets in the China Sea? Too early to call perhaps, but trending that a way?

It may be true but not in official terms.,.
My question is that whether this 1000 ship navy is going to be against RuN in the long run?
If not then what type of standardization IAF/IN is looking at?
Present trend in acquisitions tells us that either they were wrong earlier or they are doing mistakes now.
But the babudom is a constant term in this equation

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 15 Jun 2009 02:58

those an124 are used mainly as commercial purposes

and please don't bring US air force here

and most of russian il76 not used,so isn't it better to buy some second hand il76 from russia at very very cheap prices

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 15 Jun 2009 03:12

think again more heavy lift aircraft

are 10 c17 enough???????

isn't it good option 25-30 more second hand IL76 from russia each with 50 tons capability.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 15 Jun 2009 04:04

Andrew DeCristofaro wrote:and most of russian il76 not used,so isn't it better to buy some second hand il76 from russia at very very cheap prices

Maybe, depending on the condition and cost (and if Russia would even be willing to sell).

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 15 Jun 2009 04:20

Amateur videographer captures last flight of IAF AN-32

It's a short video clip of IAF AN-32 using a handheld digital camera. The clip shows a grey IAF AN-32 taking off with a roar over the hills.

It turns out that this clip is that of the IAF AN-32 that crashed on Tuesday afternoon in Arunachal Pradesh killing all 13 persons onboard.

The video clip was shot by the associate of an Itanagar-based tour operator at Mechuka airstrip from where the aircraft took over on Tuesday morning carrying soldiers for an
advanced landing ground.

"My team was trekking through Mechuka when they took the footage of the aircraft taking off," said Oken Tayeng.

"They heard of the crash a few hours later on television." The exact cause of the crash is yet to be ascertained but it is believed that due to sudden change in the weather the aircraft crashed near Tatoa village in Arunachal Pradesh.

link to video

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 15 Jun 2009 07:23

Rather than the 1000 ship navy I suspect reciprocal berthing rights to begin with. So IN ships can berth and replenish at bases in our region of interest and the USN can do so here.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 15 Jun 2009 07:37

p_saggu wrote:Rather than the 1000 ship navy I suspect reciprocal berthing rights to begin with. So IN ships can berth and replenish at bases in our region of interest and the USN can do so here.

where does USN have its own bases in our region of Interest to have reciprocal benefits, except DG?
Why do we need to go to DG?
except for getting US a look into our bases, what do we get from it?

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 15 Jun 2009 07:46

We don't need bases in the Indian Ocean. But we need berthing facilities in the Pacific and the south china sea. Surely the US can help with that.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 15 Jun 2009 07:51

p_saggu wrote:We don't need bases in the Indian Ocean. But we need berthing facilities in the Pacific and the south china sea. Surely the US can help with that.

and which bases does the US "own" there? any additional benefit which we cant get by tying up with singapore , malaysia etc?

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 15 Jun 2009 08:31

Andrew, come out dude. Say that you are Russian. The IL76 has been a good buy. However, I do not know about cheap. Talk in terms of life-cycle costs to prove your point. Up front costs and life-cycle costs are two different beasts. I hope you understand their difference.

khukri · Post by **khukri** » 15 Jun 2009 08:45

...its also time to stop putting all our eggs in a Russian basket - and being screwed over on delivery schedules, prices, spares etc. etc.....!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Jun 2009 09:17

Wonder if we could co-develop the IL-112V with Russia just like MTA to replace our own Light Transport Aircraft Do-228 ? Thats the one chosen to replace their LTA type.

http://www.ilyushin.org/eng/products/military/112v.html

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 15 Jun 2009 12:44

I thought we were intending Saras to replace Do-228? Has there been any change?

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 15 Jun 2009 14:46

C17 does belly landing in Afghanisthan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:C-17_ ... r_Base.jpg

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 15 Jun 2009 16:09

The problem with russian equipment is that they are delayed in production and testing,take for example IL-76.Even the engine upgrades wont be available within 5 yrs,. while C-17 is available with satisfactory performance .
I would still prefer IL-76 , as they were part of IAF since decades and currently it is operating more than 2 dozen of them as per wiki.
If IAF goes for globemaster or any other, that would make the standardization complex,. Either way to come out of that mess would be to phase out IL76 completely and equip with embraers or C17 or not to proceed in the indicated way. They cant phase out IL-76 as they are now an integral part of AWACS,and more are coming.
If we look at present/future inventory,i would be like (please correct if mistakes)
IL76+C17---Heavy lift Transport
MRTA+AN32---- medium/multi role transport
EMB-145 +IL 76---AWACS
C130+AN32----paratroopers
IL78+(airbus ,boeing?)------A2A refueling
p8I+IL 76----maritime surveillance
Whatever is the course, I would prefer an air force with standardized equipment than to a multicultural circus,when IAF seems to be experimenting with everything available in a shop.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 15 Jun 2009 16:24

Andrew DeCristofaro, please avoid posting inline images.

Many users are on slow connections and these images slow page loading. In addition, the larger images interfere with page width formatting.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Jun 2009 17:36

Samay wrote:
NRao wrote:My GUESS is that India has decided to join the "1000 ship navy".

The trend seems unmistakable.

Outside of that perhaps deploy assets in the China Sea? Too early to call perhaps, but trending that a way?
It may be true but not in official terms.,.
My question is that whether this 1000 ship navy is going to be against RuN in the long run?
.........................

Do not think it is against any nation per se. Uncle (actually USN) came up with this concept to de-load (my guess) some of the regional responsibilities. And, India has been with that strategy for about 10 years now - St. of Malacca being the first attempt.

In the very recent past MMS too (surprise!!!) has stated that Indian interest is beyond IOR (it was from the Gulf to Malacca).

Then in the past few days there are reports (FT) that Japan is near a decision to remove any self imposed restrictions to collab with other nations on def-production and export of military equipment.

Based entirely on this - my feel is Chicom (not RU).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Jun 2009 17:37

I think a good bulk of the cargo being carried around on IL76 today would be non-hazardous std sized pallets and bags of food, clothing, fuel, people, unloaded weapons, machinery spare parts which A320 and A300 type leased freighters operated by one of the indian cos (if given a special govt contract) can manage.

so long as rough strips (thoise) and air dropping is not needed, the civilian a/c should manage just fine and offload the IAF transport command. B737/A320 is running regular passenger services to Leh

in that sense imo more C130J freighters would be useful than 10 C-17 as reliable and sturdy theater airlift.

with some improvements some of the AGLs that take AN32 could operate the C130J

A300 cannot fly into many smaller airports like leh, chabua or tezpur, but A320 sure can!
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_k ... n25134102/

Airbus to make cargo version of Airbus A320: report
AFP , April, 2008

BERLIN (AFP) — European aircraft maker Airbus wants to launch a cargo version of its best-selling A320 passenger aircraft as part of a joint venture with the Russian firms UAC and Irkut, press reports said Monday.

"By the end of May, the project's financing and the Germano-Russian company's new structure should be wrapped up," the Financial Times Deutschland quoted aerospace executive Andreas Sperl as saying.

Sperl is director of the Elbe Flugzeugwerke plant in eastern Dresden that is owned by Airbus' parent company EADS.

The factory is is to own a major share of the project.

He said a potential client was already interested in buying up to 30 and a prototype is to be rolled out in 2011.

A corporate structure, called the Airbus Freighter Conversion (AFC), was created last year to oversee conversion of Airbus passenger aircraft into cargo planes. UAC and Irkut, which are already members of the group, are to hold a 25 percent share at term, while Airbus is to own 18 percent and the Dresden factory 32 percent, the newspaper said.

The cost of converting the single aisle A320 is estimated at US$100 million, of which US$70 million was to be financed by bank credits, said Sperl, who is also head of the AFC supervisory board.

Meanwhile, Russian billionaire Leonard Blavatnik wants to invest in the German low-cost airline Air Berlin, airline boss Joachim Hunold told the Berlin daily Tagesspiegel in comments published yesterday.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Jun 2009 17:41

Singha ji,

It is the "Globe" in the C-17 that should be of interest.

Puttering within India is passe.

Besides reviving the Indo-Russian MTA should take care of Russian interests (when will India get out of this mode of think I am not sure).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Jun 2009 17:45

Do not have a URL for this as yet (upto Admins). Something else is up in the air?:

Excellent analysis by Gulshan Luthra, although the maximum payload for C-17 is 87 tonnes, not 70. As was recently noted in an Aviation Week response outlining the extraordinary capabilities of this aircraft, and, in my opinion, a concerted effort to bring about its demise to render others desirous of participating in an arena C-17 dominates -- tactical/strategic airlift -- an opportunity, the author proferred the following:

"The U.S. already has an answer for tactical and strategic airlift, and it's called C-17. As experience has demonstrated in Iraq, Afghanistan, humanitarian/disaster relief, Antarctic re-supply and elsewhere around the globe, the C-17 has proven itself, perhaps inarguably, as the best tactical/strategic airlifter the world has ever known. Tell me please, are there places of true tactical significance the C130J goes that C-17 cannot? (Payload: 25T vs 87T)

"And just because the current administration is disingenuously demanding an end to C-17 production at 205 based on "internal Pentagon analyses" (in actuality, the GAO and Congressionally dismissed 2005/2006 Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS)), exactly what aircraft exists on the planet to do what this superlative bird from Boeing(McDonnell-Douglas)routinely accomplishes within a broad swath of airlift missions?

"If permissible within this medium of communication, I strongly suggest that AW [USA TODAY as well] readers -- and for that matter the editorial staff -- take a long exhaustive look at the data contained with a recent press release from Global HeavyLift Holdings, LLC Global HeavyLift States Boeing C-17 Production Must Be Maintained; Pursues BC-17 additional ref: Boeing close to launching commercial 'BC-17'-29/05/2007-Los Angeles-Flight International) relative to C-17 production continuance. It also seems to totally neutralize, and decidedly so, the arguments presented by the SECDEF as compelling reasons to kill C-17, not the least of which is the multi-billon retrofit through RERP/REAMP of Lockheed-Martin's C-5 Galaxy(M)an aircraft which has never met mission expectations; currently turning in a 56% mission completion rate. In other words, half the time it's flying, half the time it's not.

"Really, how can presumably logical people both within government and industry try to justify the termination of a relatively new (operational 1993)airlift aircraft that has met and exceeded expectations in favor of retrofitting 35-42 year-old C-5s originally designed for a Cold War mission and that require complete control of the skies to safely operate in a war theater?

"The content in this release, I believe, should forever lay to rest the completely unnecessary discussions regarding the "tactical airlift" problem for the US and most NATO allies.

"Also worth noting relative to expansion of organic airlift to include Heavy and Outsize within the CRAF:
Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The only problem is that there aren't enough C-17s, and according to some whose opinions count, up to 600 aircraft to cover a global asymmetric/conventional warfighting mission are required. Such a fleet expansion would permit new levels of rapid deployment even into austere locales with minimal mission repetitiveness.

"A wise man once, said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"... perfectly analogous to C-17..."

Compliments to the IAF for recognizing, at this stage of evaluation-for-acquisition process, the intrinsic flexibility,capacity, all-environmental capability coupled with superb airborne athleticism, of Boeing C-17.

Myron D. Stokes
Managing Member
Global HeavyLift Holdings, LLC

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Jun 2009 17:46

the MTA is like the girl I went after - nice but never appeared on my lap

its been in 'talks' and 'planning' since I came to br in 1997!!

> puttering within india is passe

a swift and powerful indian redeployment capacity to rapidly say put 2 addl divisions
at a point of our choosing (tawang, fukche or bhuj) is the nicest thing to keep
pakpanda on a hook. doing exercises on unkil C17 in australia or mali not so scary.

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 15 Jun 2009 18:13

Andrew, come out dude. Say that you are Russian.
-----------------------------------------------\
i am all american ,israeli,russian,european first.

but again in last i am 100% indian from heart and soul. and one must not question it again

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 15 Jun 2009 18:15

Besides reviving the Indo-Russian MTA should take care of Russian interests (when will India get out of this mode of think I am not sure).
-------------------------------------------
so whose interests are being taken care of in buying c17

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 15 Jun 2009 18:25

Andrew said . . .

Admins - please note the flamebait

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Jun 2009 18:33

Do not feed trolls.

Let them die a natural death.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 15 Jun 2009 18:43

While checking out the c17 i found the following details nice:

-Can land in distance of approx 1000m
-Can land and takeoff from a beach next to the ocean

( C17B onlee i.e. GlobeMaster IV))
-Can use its reverse thrusters in flight mode to make steep descent(s) (This is almost like pseudo 2Dtvc)
-Reverse thrusters redirect thrust upward and forward

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 15 Jun 2009 18:49

NRao wrote:
Do not think it is against any nation per se. Uncle (actually USN) came up with this concept to de-load (my guess) some of the regional responsibilities. And, India has been with that strategy for about 10 years now - St. of Malacca being the first attempt.

In the very recent past MMS too (surprise!!!) has stated that Indian interest is beyond IOR (it was from the Gulf to Malacca).

Then in the past few days there are reports (FT) that Japan is near a decision to remove any self imposed restrictions to collab with other nations on def-production and export of military equipment.

Based entirely on this - my feel is Chicom (not RU).

I agree that this is about diverting resources in near future , but ,
What was the role of usn in oceans besides pirates and chicoms?
aren't we going to play their game ? I guess we may be dragged into messy situation, where unkil will try to set our obligations ,?
Russia is and will always be their ultimate rival.
I think IOR is enough to operate for a while until the IN becomes big enough to enter the pacific zone

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 15 Jun 2009 19:04

to protect indian interest in ocean we need more submarines,or for that matter
some brahmos equipped tu22m3 stationed in mainland india and on andaman and nikobar islands too,now you will call me russian agent.

scorpene submarine induction have got late and even if navy goes for new line of subs it would be 2017-19 when first submarine is inducted which will come out of second submarine production line